Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling of polymer degradation has typically been limited to shapes that have a single dimension that is predominantly receding as volume is lost. A more comprehensive description of degradation has been devised that takes into account the reduction in volume due to the diminishment of all of the surfaces of objects with a hollow (or solid) circular (or square) cross-section. This new 3D model, however, assumes that contraction of the object occurs uniformly, which may not always represent how plastic materials naturally degrade. This publication improves the erosion model for hollow cylinders by accounting for the possibility of modified surface erosion on the inner surface and on the cylinder ends. The dimensions are unrestricted, such that the derivations apply for a wide variety of forms in the hollow cylinder category, such as rings, tubes, and straws. • First model to address nonuniform surface erosion of any hollow cylinder shape. • Erosion inside, and on ends, of cylinder may differ from that on exterior. • Model can be used for any ring, tube, or straw with circular cross-section. • Erosion magnitude is derived from model, given experimental mass loss measurements. • Degradation rate is defined by numerical differentiation – it is not constant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".